(Continued from page 301)
Other attempts to add Mary's sufferings to the Redemption wrought by the Lord Jesus Christ
Rome promotes 'Mary' to 'Mother of the Head, and the Mother of the Body'
These are some additional points brought up via the site you refer to:
Thus, the suffering can be spiritual. So how does this relate to Mary? Mary gives birth to Christ, and his sufferings on Calvary. Well, there was a prophecy given by Simeon, in Luke 2:34-35 that speaks to this very issue, as brought up in Rev. 12:2:
… Simeon blessed them and said to Mary his mother, 'Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising of many in Israel, and for a sign that is spoken against 35 (and a sword will pierce through your own soul also), that thoughts out of many hearts may be revealed.'
So Mary underwent the spiritual suffering at Calvary. Her soul was pierced when she saw her Son die on the cross. There is a richness in Luke 2:34-35, which shows how Mary suffered. But not only on the cross.
Mary as an individual had rejoiced to be the mother of him who would fulfill the promises made to Abraham; as the Daughter of Zion, more aware than anyone else of the destiny of her child, she welcomed his coming for the joy it would bring to Israel and to the world (cf. once more the Magnificat).
Her mental sufferings reached a climax on Calvary, but they had begun long before. And even at the foot of the cross, she suffered a double agony. She watched the physical torment and heard the mockery directed at Jesus, her son
TCE: Catholic writers do more than stretch Scriptures a little in order to try and find room to add 'Mary's' sufferings - 'But not only on the cross' - to those of Christ in order to try and gain support for their false view of her as 'Mediatrix. Another erroneous view is expressed in this passage:
'Thus, the suffering pointed to in Revelation 12:2 points exactly to the suffering that she entailed when seeing the rejection of her Son, that reached its fulfillment on the cross. In addition to this, we see her as the Spiritual mother of all of Christ's children (Jn. 19:27, Rev. 12:17). Now, as Mary is still the only one who is Jesus' mother, this shows a double birth, both a physical birth of Christ, and a spiritual birth, where she begets the children of Christ. That brings with it also a painful spiritual childbirth, as we have seen in other passages which show spiritual suffering (2 Pet. 2:8, Gal. 4:19, Rom. 8:22).'
Again, 'knight jump eisegesis' attempts to incorporate the single verse from Luke 2 ['this child is set for the fall and rising of many in Israel, and for a sign that is spoken against (and a sword will pierce through your own soul also)'] to try and add 'Mary's sufferings' to the 'once for all' sacrifice (Rom 6:10; Heb 7:27; 10:10; 1 Peter 3:18) of Christ at Calvary by connecting them to '(2 Pet. 2:8, Gal. 4:19, Rom. 8:22)'. These are verses which truly speak of the growing church and show that the historical Mary was never regarded in the manner that Rome tries to impose on Scripture! This eisegesis view is taken by many other Catholic writers as they seek the most spurious connections to bolster the doctrine, e.g.:
"In 1 Cor. 15, 24-26 St. Paul depicts the enemies of Christ as battling against Christ, reigning on high. In reality, however, these enemies are only able to persecute the members of Christ's Body still on earth. They battle against the Head, but can only inflict harm on the Body. A clear case is Acts 9, 4 f, where the risen Jesus states that Saul is persecuting him, whereas Saul was bent on the murder of the disciples of the Lord (v.1):
Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? And he said: Who are you, Lord? And he said: I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.
It is worthy of note that the personal name of Jesus was used. Saul persecutes Jesus in person when he persecutes the members of Jesus. Hence, in Cor. 15, 24 ff, St. Paul has the same counterpart of Head and Members in mind, a doctrine which runs throughout his letters, even though he does not mention both angles of it explicitly in every passage.
Does the same hold good for Mary? Is there a similar (though not identical) unity between Mary and the Church as between Christ and his members? In speaking of Mary, the sacred writer would also have the Church in mind. And, in parallel to the above passage concerning Christ, the battle of Satan would rage (in Rev. 12) against the person of Mary, although in actuality affecting the Church on earth." (Woman Clothed with the Sun - Bernard LeFrois)
TCE: The connection between the church and 'Mary' is made by this interpretation of Revelation 12 so that the Catholic writer can make the point: 'in parallel to the above passage concerning Christ, the battle of Satan would rage (in Rev. 12) against the person of Mary, although in actuality affecting the Church on earth.' Thus, a classic misinterpretation of the passage is instilled into Catholic minds by making it appear that Satan is concerned about the power and influence of 'Mary'. Although the admission is made that Satan's attack 'in actuality affect[s] the Church on earth' the point of the false doctrine is to convince the Catholic believer that 'Mary' is leading the Church's spiritual battles against Satan and that she is the 'One' to whom suitable veneration and prayer should be made. This is astonishingly far from Biblical truth!
Israel, or Mary, 'clothed' with the 'Sun, moon and stars'?
Similar sentiments are echoed at the site you referenced - in further attempts to promote her to virtual deification:
Now a good summary of this passage and its relation to Mary, and the suffering in Revelation 12, is again provided by Manelli:
If the whole Son of Mary is Jesus, Head and Body, Mary is shown in joy at Bethlehem as the Mother of the Head, and on Calvary as the Mother of the Body regenerated unto the supernatural life of grace. Koehler succinctly summarizes: Mary 'is the Woman who in Jesus (therefore born at Bethlehem and at Calvary) gives to God mankind reborn to divine sonship.
TCE: Again, the introduction of ideas that are alien to Scripture and are intended to promote 'Mary' as the 'Mother of the Head, and … the Mother of the Body' so she gains an authority that Scripture never affords her! The article goes on to claim that:
'Mary is the mother of Christians and this is not speculation, but a direct biblical fact. There are many Catholics who use John 19:25-27, as proof that Mary is the Mother of Christians, and see in John as one who takes Mary into his home, as representing all Christians who take Mary as their mother…. the Catholic view historically has also seen the woman as being the Church, the people of God, and an assortment of other views …If Mary is in any way a 'woman' of Revelation 12, she would be the mother of Christians, as only Christians are those who bear testimony of Jesus.
Here the Catholic writer is even bold enough to claim that 'Mary is the mother of Christians and this is not speculation, but a direct biblical fact.' Perhaps the Catholic writer can point us to one Scripture that shows 'Mary' is 'the mother of Christians'? As with all cults the claim relies on a comparison of Scriptures and trying to force the meaning into the verses.
The author rejects the work of two non-Catholic writers, Ron Rhodes (quoting from John F. Walvoord) and Norman Geisler, who discuss the points (basically as previously given). In rejecting 'the option that both Rhodes and Geisler give us as the woman being the Nation of Israel' he emphasises 'that this option totally misses the main point of what the woman does in Revelation 12…the 'woman' is one that gives birth to the child…The woman happens to be Mary, not Israel.'
He states further that:
A look at the Scriptures, both New and Old Testament will not find a single reference to Israel either being a 'woman', or giving birth to the Messiah. Genesis 37 says absolutely nothing about Israel giving birth to a Messiah. Thus, the main feature of the woman in Revelation 12, giving birth to the Messiah, has no relevance to Israel, and its feature as 'woman' is nowhere to be found in the New or Old Testament. Both Rhodes, Geisler, and all Protestants that I have seen, acknowledge that the Son in this picture is Jesus. Their admission that the Son is Jesus, explicitly points to Mary being the Mother.
Note that this Catholic writer rejects other interpretations of Revelation 12 out of hand, despite the Scriptures we have shown that clearly connect Israel, Messianic believers, the coming Messiah, and heavenly Jerusalem with a 'woman' and the struggles of labour and birth! There is another factor that needs to be considered in examining the nature of the 'woman' of Revelation 12. How is 'she' related to the other 'women' of Scripture? What can we learn from Scriptures which compare the sacred relationship of God to his obedient followers to marriage, and His people's infidelity to that of an unfaithful woman who sinks into whoredoms (Jeremiah 3:1-14)?:
1 'They say, `If a man put away his wife, and she go from him and become another man's, shall he return unto her again? Shall not that land be greatly polluted?' But thou hast played the harlot with many lovers; yet return again to Me,' saith the LORD. 2 'Lift up thine eyes unto the high places, and see where hast thou not been lain with. By the wayside hast thou sat for them, as the Arabian in the wilderness; and thou hast polluted the land with thy whoredoms and with thy wickedness. 3 Therefore the showers have been withheld, and there hath been no latter rain. And thou had a whore's forehead; thou refused to be ashamed. 4 Wilt thou not from this time cry unto Me, `My Father, Thou art the guide of my youth? 5 Will He reserve His anger for ever? Will He keep it to the end?' Behold, thou hast spoken, and done evil things as thou couldest.' 6 The LORD said also unto me in the days of Josiah the king: 'Hast thou seen that which backsliding Israel hath done? She hath gone up upon every high mountain and under every green tree, and there hath played the harlot. 7 And I said after she had done all these things, `Return thou unto Me.' But she returned not, and her treacherous sister Judah saw it. 8 And I saw that for all the causes for which backsliding Israel committed adultery, I had put her away and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also. 9 And it came to pass, because she made so light of her whoredom, that she defiled the land and committed adultery with stones and with stocks. 10 And yet for all this her treacherous sister Judah hath not turned unto Me with her whole heart, but feignedly,' saith the LORD. 11 And the LORD said unto me, 'The backsliding Israel hath justified herself more than treacherous Judah. 12 Go and proclaim these words toward the north, and say: '`Return, thou backsliding Israel,' saith the LORD, `and I will not cause Mine anger to fall upon you; for I am merciful,' saith the LORD, `and I will not keep anger for ever. 13 Only acknowledge thine iniquity: that thou hast transgressed against the LORD thy God, and hast scattered thy ways to the strangers under every green tree, and ye have not obeyed My voice,' saith the LORD. 14 `Turn, O backsliding children,' saith the LORD, `for I am married unto you; and I will take you, one from a city and two from a family, and I will bring you to Zion.
Thus a whore or harlot is used in the Bible as a symbol of a disloyal church that has left the Bridegroom, Jesus Christ, and is having illicit relations by following other leaders and their gods (cf. Ezekiel 16 and 23). Where does the 'woman' of Revelation 12, who is a symbol of a religious group, as is the 'whore' of Revelation 17, fit in God's view of His 'Apocalypse'? Is she an individual, the Virgin Mary, or does she represent a group of believers?
The 'women' in Revelation are described in extremes of moral character, either very good or very bad. These heavy contrasts are typical of apocalyptic literature, which tends to be dualistic, contrasting good and evil. Apocalyptic writing separates things into definite categories of good and evil, right and wrong. In Revelation, one is either on the side of God, who is holy, righteous, and just - or on the side of Satan, who is surrounded by abominations, idolatries, and wickedness. The future plays prominently in these writings as the inspired writer is shown coming events, on the one hand offering hope to those who long for justice and delivery from evil, and on the other issuing warnings to those who are in rebellion against God's ways. Thus, the thrust of the passages, along with the unusual actions that these 'women' take, suggests strongly that we understand them as symbols rather than literal women, e.g.:
Christ rebukes the church at Thyatira for allowing 'that woman Jezebel' to teach people to worship false gods and to encourage immorality. In the Old Testament, Jezebel was a literal, historical figure, the wife of King Ahab. Together, they were perhaps the most wicked of the Jewish rulers (see 'Jezebel' at 2:20-23). Note that Christ says that He will judge not only Jezebel, but her children as well - people who follow her ways.
The Woman Giving Birth (12:1-6, 13-17)
This 'woman' stands in marked contrast to Jezebel. Attacked by an evil dragon, she finds protection and refuge provided by God. The attempts of the dragon to destroy her, along with 'the rest of her offspring' (12:17), are therefore taken to be references to Satan's attempts to destroy Israel and disrupt the Messianic line. She is not named, but clearly enjoys the love of God.
Babylon, the Great Harlot (14:8; 17:1-6, 15-18; 18:1-24)
Old Testament prophets (e.g. Hosea 3:1; Ezek. 16:8-58) often referred to adulterers and prostitutes to represent people who practiced idolatry. Just as an adulteress is unfaithful to her husband, so God's people are unfaithful to Him when they allow their hearts to be divided and they worship other gods.
The harlot in Rev. 17 is identified as Babylon, which first-century readers would have identified as Rome (ref. Rev. 14:8). In contrast to the New Jerusalem that descends from heaven with glory and blessing (Rev. 21), Babylon is shattered and destroyed in judgment for persecuting God's people and corrupting the peoples of the earth with wickedness (Rev. 18).
The Wife (Bride) of the Lamb (19:7-8)
As the marriage feast of the Lamb approaches, a bride has made herself ready. The description of this 'woman' clothing herself in righteous acts (19:8) makes her representative of the church.
As pointed out earlier, in relation to other aspects of the use of the term 'woman' and her moral state before God in Scripture, the 'woman', when symbolized by a whore or harlot, is an apostate people or church. But, just as a whore can symbolize an impure church, a 'virgin' can symbolize a pure church, e.g.:
'I have likened the daughter of Zion to a comely and delicate woman' (Jeremiah 6:2)
How Rome attempts to 'prove' their 'Immaculate Conception' doctrine
The Catholic writer at http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/woman.html# concedes that: 'The Sun, moon and stars indeed allude to Israel, but the woman is not the sun, moon, and stars herself. The woman is 'clothed' with the Sun, moon and stars.'
TCE: In what sense is the woman 'clothed'? The Catholic writer chooses not to elaborate on these so, presumably, it has not crossed their mind that the passage symbolises the manner in which the 'woman' has come out of (or 'been a product of' or 'clothed with') the 'sun, moon, and stars' of Genesis 37 (as discussed earlier)? So this 'clothing' also irrevocably connects the 'woman' of Revelation 12 to the nation of Israel by reminding us again of the parentage of Jacob and Rachel!
It is therefore no surprise that the Catholic writer continues with the only point on his horizon: 'As the 'woman' she gives birth to the son, so it is Mary. There is no indication in Scripture anywhere that the Nation Israel gives birth to the Son who is the messiah, the central identification of Revelation 12.'
TCE: Thus the Catholic writer tries to ignore the way in which Scripture does show that the Messiah was going to come out of Israel. The phrase 'cake and eat it' also springs to mind for, if Catholic writers are going to insist that this passage refers to a literal Mary giving literal physical birth to the Messiah, then they are going to have to accept that Scripture never mentions a sinless Mary. If they insist (as many of them do) that 'travail' is not a description of physical birth, then surely this passage does not refer to the birth of the Son, Christ Jesus. The passage states: 'she cried out in her pangs of birth, in anguish for delivery. . . brought forth a male child' - if the passage is describing physical birth in which 'Mary' suffers the pain of childbirth, then the doctrine of 'Immaculate Conception' (which is nowhere described in Scripture anyway!) is further blown out of the water! We have also seen absolutely no support for the idea that Revelation 12 is describing 'Mary' giving birth to 'her children' in the church.
The 'insight' of 'Mary' wearing 'the Sun, moon and stars' supposedly supplied by such as Stephano Manelli is sheer fabrication:
Of great importance, in particular, is the description of the exterior feature of the 'woman', rich in a symbolism quite unusual. 'Clothed with the sun', Mary was really flooded by divine grace that consecrated her immaculate from conception and transformed her into the Mother of God. 'The moon under her feet' signifies that all things created and passing - symbolized by the moon, which appears and disappears - are under the feet of the Queen of the universe. 'on her head a crown of twelve stars' is the symbol of Mary's reign over the angels (stars), the Chosen People (the 'twelve' tribes), over the Church (the 'twelve' apostles). 
Notice the embellishing that proceeds: 'Mary was really flooded by divine grace that consecrated her immaculate from conception and transformed her into the Mother of God.' All without one iota of Scriptural support - as is the remaining rambling symbolisation. We have to agree with the Catholic writer's suggestion that 'this is an exaggeration, an excuse to exalt Mary.' A careful examination of the evidence shows that the term 'Mother of God' should be carefully clarified for, although it is obviously true that Mary was the mother of the physical body of the Lord Jesus Christ, she is not 'Mother' in the normal sense of the word - she did not bring 'God [the Son]' into existence, for He always existed before His birth. Christ always was God and it was through His Incarnation that He chose to come to earth and be born as a Man, so that He would fulfill all the necessary attributes of the Son of Man and Son of God. The Fathers of the Church were careful to clarify the meaning of 'begotten, not created' to avoid such errors causing the unwary to be led astray. We should be no less careful now! However, Rome has been positively 'cavalier' in her attempts to support their Mariology so that we read here:
But if this woman is Mary, and she is the only one who gives birth to the Messiah as shown in Revelation 12, Isaiah 7, Matthew and Luke. It shows that she is indeed exalted in a magnificent manner, which in no way detracts from the Son who rules the nations. If in any way this woman is Mary, the phrase 'Queen of heaven and earth' has direct biblical support in Revelation 12.
Exegesis claimed for eisegesis - even appealing to Luther!
Do Roman Catholics really believe that their church does not detract from the Son by its claims for Mary? The opening e-mail suggests some of the opinions of popes and luminaries of Rome grate - even with those used to their excesses. The more the follower of God's Word, the Bible, reads the claims of Rome the more bizarre they sound. And for good reason - the origins of the Roman opinions are unrelentingly based on extra-Biblical occultic 'revelation'!
The Catholic writer has to appeal to emotion rather than Scripture to try and support the doctrine he wishes to inculcate:
Although the purpose of this essay is not to directly deal with the Immaculate conception, the enmity between the 'woman' and the serpent cannot be reconciled with sin in the woman: not only with original sin, but with any sin whatsoever,. Any sin at all would constitute a victory for the serpent. This is a basis for ascribing to Mary an immunity from every sin. Whereas Eve helped to plunge the world into sin, and she went along with the serpent, Mary did not go along with the Serpent. In fact Eve was not at enmity with the devil as v. 15 indicates. She was at full enmity with the devil prior to her and Adam's sin. When she sinned, she befriended the devil. When we sin, we befriend the devil. Eve's disobedience to God but befriending the devil, led to the world's downfall. Mary's obedience led to the birth of our Lord and Messiah Jesus Christ.
TCE: the Catholic writer claims that: 'Any sin at all would constitute a victory for the serpent. This is a basis for ascribing to Mary an immunity from every sin.' It is the only basis Rome has for this false doctrine. There is absolutely no Scriptural warrant whatsoever! Recognising this problem, the Catholic writer has to try and split Genesis 3:15-16 so that it is first addressed Mary (v15), and then to Eve (v16):
Again, see the contrast of blessing with the woman of v. 15 with the penalties given to Eve:
I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel. 16To the woman he said, 'I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.' 17 And to Adam he said, 'Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, 'You shall not eat of it,' cursed is the ground because of you; in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life; 18thorns and thistles it shall bring forth to you; and you shall eat the plants of the field. 19In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; you are dust, and to dust you shall return.' 20 The man called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all living. 21 And the LORD God made for Adam and for his wife garments of skins, and clothed them.
Manelli notes as well the great contrast between the woman of v. 15 and that of Eve in verse 16 and following:
Immediately after having so solemnly of how the 'woman' with her 'seed' is to triumph over the serpent, he speaks of how Eve must endure suffering and humiliation for the rest of her life. On what grounds is it possible to understand in each the same 'woman'? If God had intended Eve to be victorious over the serpent as our avenger, as stated in Gen. 3:15, one could hardly understand why in the verses immediately following, God addresses Eve only in terms of reproach and chastisement. Nowhere in Scripture is Eve ever alluded to, except negatively. Every time mention is made of Eve, she is indicted as the cause of our ruin, never as the beginning of our restoration (2 Cor. 11:3; 1 Tim. 2:14). Rather, the point of departure for the logical development of this powerful and fruitful antithesis between Eve and Mary, noted by the earliest Fathers, such as St. Justin and St. Irenaeus, and commented upon down the centuries since, is the reality of that contrast between Eve and the 'woman' of Genesis 3:15. It is a contrast that makes it impossible for both verses to refer to the same 'woman' (Gen 3:15). The antithesis between the 'woman' and Eve is clearly evident both in God's manner of speaking of the 'woman' (Gen 3:15) and to the woman (Eve) (Gen 3:16), as well as in the diametrical opposition between Eve and the 'woman', considering the fundamental role each exercised historically. 
Another person noting the words of Gen. 3:15 which speaks of the enmity between the 'woman' and Satan is Patrick Madrid:
This passage is especially significant in that it refers to the 'Seed of the woman,' a singular usage. The Bible, following normal biology, otherwise only refers to the man, the seed of the father, but never to the seed of he woman. Who is the woman mentioned here? The only possibility is Mary, the only woman to give birth to a child without the aid of a human father, a fact prophesied in Isaiah 7:14. If Mary were not completely sinless this prophecy becomes untenable Why is that? The passage points to Mary's Immaculate Conception because it mentions a complete enmity between the woman and Satan. Such an enmity would have been impossible if Mary were tainted by sin, original or actual (see 2 Cor. 6:14). This line of thinking rules out Eve as the woman, since she clearly was under the influence of Satan in Genesis 3. 
TCE: splitting the text so that two women are addressed - first Mary, then Eve - allows papal writers to try and force their false doctrine of the 'Immaculate Conception' into Genesis 3:15-16, but there is no warrant for doing so. Because God details the penalties of their sin to Adam and Eve, does it mean that He would not give them any hope for the future of their 'seed'? The Scriptures following Genesis show this not to be the case!
Madrid tries to make the point: 'The passage points to Mary's Immaculate Conception because it mentions a complete enmity between the woman and Satan. Such an enmity would have been impossible if Mary were tainted by sin, original or actual (see 2 Cor. 6:14).'
Remember earlier the compiler of the web-page stated:
In fact Eve was not at enmity with the devil as v. 15 indicates. She was at full enmity with the devil prior to her and Adam's sin. When she sinned, she befriended the devil. When we sin, we befriend the devil. Eve's disobedience to God but befriending the devil, led to the world's downfall.
This is all to attempt to show that Eve cannot be the woman! Certainly, there is enmity between sinful man and Satan (from Adam and Eve to this day), as God said here in Genesis, for Satan is no one's friend. We wonder if Rome sees Satan's permitted testing of Job as the act of 'friendship' with mankind that this writer talks about? Sin clearly brought enmity with God, as Scripture states (Romans 8:7: 'because the carnal mind is enmity against God, for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be'; Ephesians 2:16; 'and that He might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby'; James 4:4: 'Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God').
The Catholic writer continues:
Only by way of arbitrary and contradictory interpretation can one find Eve in the 'woman' of Gen. 3:15. There is simply nothing in her entire life in any way related to the great salvific mission of the two protagonists described in Gen. 3:15: the Messiah and his Mother. Gen. 3:15 is not only a prophecy about Jesus, but is perfectly fulfilled in his mother, who gives birth to him. Those who are objective will see that the 'woman' of Genesis 3:15 is Mary.
In fact all the Protestant 'Reformers' who did a study of this passage saw both not only the Christological significance of the Genesis 3 passage, but also the Mariological significance of the passage. Now, remember, all of these Protestants are going by the theory of The Bible Alone. Thus, the doctrine that they are coming to is not being forced by Catholic eisogesis [sic], as modern Protestant critics say. A study of this issue by a Father Gallus resulted in the following finding:
Father Gallus extended his studies to the field of Protestant exegesis and published two further volumes, the first of the leaders of the Reform (Luther, Zwingli, Calvin), the second on Protestant scholars from those contemporary with Luther to the end of the 18th century: Der Nachkomme der Frau in der Altlutheranischen Schriftauslegung, vol. 1 (Klagenfurt, 1964); Der Nchkomme der Frau in der Altlutheranishcen Schriftauslegung. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Exegese von Gen 3, 15, vol. 2 (klagenfurt, 1973). In this second volume, 'Fr. Gallus gives an account of the exegesis of seventy Protestant professors, showing that all of them fully accept the messianic and mariological significance of Gen. 3:15. The followers of Luther do nothing more than deepen and clarify the exegesis of the German Reformer. The seed of the woman is Christ and only Christ. In the phrase 'the seed of the woman' is indicated the virginal birth of Christ from Mary, a promise confirmed by Isaiah 7:14' (S. Virgulin, 'Ricerche su Genesi 3, 15 dal 1970 al 1977', Marianum 40 : 28-29. 
With Geisler and Rhodes and many others, we currently have the wave of anti-Marian theology that ignores or at least discounts tradition as not binding, whether it is Christian, be it Protestant or Catholic, and tries new theories with no historical basis, and tortured and contradictory ways to interpret Scripture while at the same time unbelievably saying that the exegesis agreed upon by Christians for almost 2000 years as a 'stretch.'
TCE: it should come as no surprise to find that 'Luther, Zwingli, Calvin …Protestant scholars from those contemporary with Luther to the end of the 18th century … seventy Protestant professors … all … fully accept the messianic and mariological significance of Gen. 3:15 … [and] followers of Luther do nothing more than deepen and clarify the exegesis of the German Reformer'. It is a clear and consistent fact that the Reformers, and many of their followers, never 'reformed' from Rome far enough! They had only just rediscovered the doctrine of sola scriptura and had yet to apply it to all doctrines. We would not, for a moment, pretend that the Reformers suddenly became Paulian in all their doctrines! Perhaps the Catholic writer of this piece also approves of Luther's Roman training in anti-Semitism - which he never fully shook off - or Calvin's approval of the murder of heretics! But these errors are totally at home with papal traditions.
(Continued on page 303)